Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

[Losty]

And there are scriptures in place forbidding a husband to abuse his wife.

Do you think all abuse is physical?

The bible is remarkably silent on mental and cultural abuse, after all.

Not only that but there is still no out for women whose husbands abuse them.
Having scriptures in place that forbid abuse does nothing to protect women whose husbands choose to abuse them anyways. There is no scripture in place to allow for divorce in the case of abuse.

[orangebox21]

In our countries, the religious are the vast majority. If women do not presently have full equality it is primarily because of so called religious men. Religious men who have forgotten their duty to family.

Regards
DL

If we assume that in our country the religious are the vast majority, it does not necessarily follow that women do not presently have full equality (with respect to pay) in the workforce. The Biblically defined roles are within the context of a formal worship setting and the home. It does not define 'workplace' roles.

If A is true and B is true, does that necessitate that A caused B?

Except that under the sanctions the bible places on women, they generally can't: divorce is a no-no, after all.

Is your argument then (and please correct me where/if I'm wrong):
Pr. Biblical roles provide the possibility of abuse.
Pr. Women who are abused cannot divorce their husband
Therefore Biblical roles are wrong.

Typically a woman is more akin to property in their biblical role than people, though I can't wait for you to dismiss that observation out of hand as being not a correct interpretation, while you make no effort at all to demonstrate why yours is the right one.

I'm going to need more clarification of your point here. We've been discussing the biblical roles of husbands and wives, no mention of women being akin to property has been discussed. Also, interpretation of what? The scriptures I'd previously posted?

How does being submissive necessitate being property. I obeyed a traffic light on the way to work, does that mean that I'm the traffic light's property?

Necessitates? No. But it does leave the door wide open to abuse and give very little recourse should it start happening. Which is the problem. Something doesn't have to be the exclusive cause of a problem for it to exacerbate it.

You're argument however is that because Biblically defined roles can lead to abusive situations they are wrong. This is a different argument from your above argument. Both arguments however are non-sequitur and you've agreed above. If said roles do not necessitate abuse then it is non-sequitur to conclude that the roles are inherently the cause of the abuse and therefore wrong.

And there are scriptures in place forbidding a husband to abuse his wife.

Do you think all abuse is physical?

The bible is remarkably silent on mental and cultural abuse, after all.

I have not defined abuse as only physical.

Who said anything about physiology? The explanation is about the creator and the created order.

Don't play games here, we both know that gender as the bible describes it is a physiological condition. You can shop off the responsibility for that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that under a biblical system if you possess a penis you're given a level of assumed power over women.

What you just said is a transparent dodge that doesn't address the issue I was raising at all.

I was not intentionally dodging the question. Due to your response I felt clarification was required. The explanation given for the justification of roles is not biological. The explanation is tied to the created order (See 1 Timothy 2:13 and the doctrine of federal headship). Had women been created first and then men, women would have the roles men currently have. It is not an issue of biology it is an issue of the created order.

That is wrong.

Just as an aside, do you understand how utterly insipid this "nuh uh!" answer is?

To clarify, women being paid less than men for being just as productive at the same job is wrong. I was not saying the statistic was wrong.

Not only that but there is still no out for women whose husbands abuse them.

Separation. Incarceration of the abusive husband. Certainly the immediate safety of any abused person is the first priority.

Having scriptures in place that forbid abuse does nothing to protect women whose husbands choose to abuse them anyways.

While I disagree and assert that scriptures do something to protect women from abuse, I do see your point.

There are certainly laws in place to punish any husband who abuses his wife for whatever reason. Any man who abuses his wife is in no way justified and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

There is no scripture in place to allow for divorce in the case of abuse.

To my knowledge that is true. Consider Matthew 19:9 (Jesus teaching on divorce). You'll see that it is not the divorce that causes the sin, but rather the remarriage.

Throughout the age God has allowed certain things that are not a part of His initial intent. While it was and is God's initial intent that marriage be one man and one woman for life, there are times and circumstances that divorce has been and is tolerated.

A little more reading about the Bible and divorce

[Diablo]

It's amazing that this thread has lasted 122 posts. Which part of 'no' don't you understand, the 'n' or the 'o'?

[Esquilax]

Is your argument then (and please correct me where/if I'm wrong):
Pr. Biblical roles provide the possibility of abuse.
Pr. Women who are abused cannot divorce their husband
Therefore Biblical roles are wrong.

Well, if you want to talk about whether the biblical roles are factually correct or not then obviously I disagree with that because I don't believe in god and even if he did exist that doesn't necessarily give him the right to dictate roles to us. If you're talking about the moral case, then yes, I would suggest to you that a system which makes one class of people extremely susceptible to abuse and offers them no recourse to remove themselves from the situation, on the basis of an asserted "role" that they have no choice in from an authority of a suspect existential nature for whom that authority is not earned or demonstrated but simply demanded, is immoral from the ground up.

Why would it not be? It opens up only the possibility of harm, is blind to nuance, forces people that are unsuited to certain roles into them merely because they have a certain set of genitalia, and so far the only support for this you've provided has nothing to do with whether things are actually better under this system, but just "god says."

I'm going to need more clarification of your point here. We've been discussing the biblical roles of husbands and wives, no mention of women being akin to property has been discussed. Also, interpretation of what? The scriptures I'd previously posted?

The bible's treatment of women in general is pretty sucky. The so-called penalty for rape, the treatment of female slaves, even a number of biblical stories in which women are simply used as pawns in the agenda's of men (Lot and his daughters come to mind, not to mention Jeptha) abound, with no way out to redress that power imbalance. If you want to talk about the biblical roles of husbands and wives, you cannot escape talking about how those women might, biblically, become wives. Namely, being sold to their rapists, given as chattel to male slaves, or being spoils of war. The foundation of this conversation itself is rife with examples of abuse, and if you want to pretend like the "subservient role" isn't necessarily abusive then we need to factor in how that relationship might be affected by how the bible permits a man to obtain a wife. You can't take one scripture and ignore another, after all.

Except that's what I fully expect you to do, hence my reference to interpretation.

How does being submissive necessitate being property. I obeyed a traffic light on the way to work, does that mean that I'm the traffic light's property?

I was pretty clearly talking specifically in the context of the bible. At least try to make your reductio ad absurdums appropriate, would you?

You're argument however is that because Biblically defined roles can lead to abusive situations they are wrong.

No, my argument is that biblically defined roles, even if they do not directly encourage abuse- which I would argue that they do, actually- offer easy justification for abuse, while furnishing no positive effects at all. This is the problem inherent in huge, sweeping generalizations like the biblical roles: for those that they work for it's better that they slip into them of their own free will, and for those that they don't the entire situation is nothing but a trap. You've yet to really offer any benefits these roles provide, instead opting to argue against the clear negative effects.

But "it's not always bad," is not the same as "it's good."

This is a different argument from your above argument. Both arguments however are non-sequitur and you've agreed above. If said roles do not necessitate abuse then it is non-sequitur to conclude that the roles are inherently the cause of the abuse and therefore wrong.

If those roles offer a chance for abuse to occur that wouldn't be there if they didn't exist, and provide no benefits to offset that chance, then they are more harmful than anything else, and are therefore morally wrong.

I have not defined abuse as only physical.

So what say you of the fact that the bible just lets it all happen?

I was not intentionally dodging the question. Due to your response I felt clarification was required. The explanation given for the justification of roles is not biological. The explanation is tied to the created order (See 1 Timothy 2:13 and the doctrine of federal headship). Had women been created first and then men, women would have the roles men currently have. It is not an issue of biology it is an issue of the created order.

It is, however, defined by biology with no care as to the character of the people involved. A woman is bound to a woman's role because she is a woman, under that system. Not because it actually befits her.

To clarify, women being paid less than men for being just as productive at the same job is wrong. I was not saying the statistic was wrong.

Oh, okay then. I misread that, my apologies.

[Mudhammam]

It's amazing that this thread has lasted 122 posts

I blame Losty!

[Losty]

It really is my fault. What can I say, I'm a rebel.
But seriously I didn't mean to start the debate back up again. I figured the OP was long gone by now. Usually sexists don't last long here.

[Mystical]

It really is my fault. What can I say, I'm a rebel.
But seriously I didn't mean to start the debate back up again. I figured the OP was long gone by now. Usually sexists don't last long here.

The Greatest I Am is a lasting member of this forum.. I just rarely see him slithering around. This isn't the first thread to the tune of masogyny that he's posted. I suspect he gets mad at his mum from time to time for coddling him too much, and starts these threads to fulfill his rebel spirit.

[Losty]

:o

Luckie! You're online and this is where you show your face!? When you should be in a69 making out with me!?

Hehe ily pretty, sexy Luckie

[Greatest I am]

And in your duty to family, did she teach to put yourself ahead of your family or did she teach you to put them ahead of yourself.

Regards
DL

Neither.

That explains you not knowing your duty.

Regards
DL

[Losty]

DL are you married?